User talk:TeePee-20.7

Welcome!

Hello, TeePee-20.7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Seraphimblade 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test article

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Stedi edi. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Seraphimblade 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

You have twice removed a paragraph from Latin America#Demographics about Latino heritage and identity without explaining why. The first time, I restored the paragraph due to the lack of explanation. You have made productive edits to the article since, so I believe you are trying to improve the article, but I'm still unsure why you are removing this. If you use edit summaries to explain what you are doing and why, then your reasoning is clear. Of course, sometimes an explanation is too long to fit in the edit summary box, and the matter may need to be discussed on the talk page, but most of the time the edit summary is very useful.-gadfium 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia

{{helpme}} How do I make my own page andwhat is the 'my watchlist' option for? TeePee-20.7 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've moved the helpme request here to your talk page (that template is meant only for user talk pages). To make your own user page all you have to do is edit User:TeePee-20.7. For an explanation of what you can have on your user page, see Wikipedia:Userpage. The watchlist lets you know when a page has been recently edited. This lets you keep track of changes to articles you are interested in. When you are viewing an article, or even someone else's user page, there is a tab near the top of the screen that says "watch" -- click that tab and the page will be added to your watchlist. Then, when you click on the link (very top of the page) that says "my watchlist" you will see any recent changes to the pages in your watchlist. SWAdair | Talk 07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Don't worry about the placement of the helpme request. We don't expect new editors to know all the ins-and-outs of the system. That's why we have the {{helpme}} template -- so that we can help you learn the ropes. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. SWAdair | Talk 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmies

Hi, to answer your question I have never found a reference to Pygmy populations in South America. If you find one I would be quite curious. The link between New Guinean and African pygmies is quite strong, and if you think about human migration patterns, it would make sense that there would be an "old" genetic link between these two geographically distant populations. However, migration into the Americas was much later than into Southeast Asia and Oceania, and was done primarily by one genetic group. While there are Amazonian populations that are smaller on average than other American populations, they are not as small as pygmies, and I do not think they share a genetic link. That is my understanding from my education and what I have read since, but again, if you can find a reference I would love to read it. Thanks, Meateatingvegan 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you very much for the praise! If there's any particular prehistoric species article you want to see illustrated, please let me know.--Mr Fink 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Gang Rapes

- I was just wondering if there should be a section for the gang rapes as Greenacre is where they were committed. TeePee-20.7 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - :Why do people want to include criminal activity in these articles on suburbs? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You don't find every criminal event ever committed in articles about places in an encyclopedia, so I don't think we need to do that in wikipedia either.J Bar 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - ::Well the only reason why I suggested this was because they were quite infamous and lead to the passing of new laws, and more than 240 years in gaol time handed out to nine men. And greenacre is not known for much except a high crime rate, and this is supported by the gang rapes. TeePee-20.7 08:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) - P.S. This is one of the reasons why my mother decided to move, "because of all the trouble". - TeePee-20.7 08:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) ???[reply]

Deletion?

Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted the discussion on the talk page for Greenacre:TeePee-20.7 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'Day Tee Pee,

The discussion wasn't going anywhere and it is not appropriate for a encyclopedia article on a suburb anyway. There has been much discussion in a number of sydney suburb pages about crimes listed in suburb articles because it doesn't fit the criteria of wikipedia. The same goes for information that is considered to be POV (Point of View)listing minor current events or references to businesses which considered advertising or listing individual property values or notable persons who may have lived in the suburb briefly. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia or a reference guide. There are standard headings for relevant information that we try to follow for consistency across all articles, like Location, History, Commercial areas, Transport, Politics, Culture, Events etc... If a crime commited in a suburb is a significant event in the suburb's history then it should be included in the History section. It may be you Point of View that Greenacre is not known for much except a high crime rate but this is not a view shared by the general community. Cheers, J Bar 05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help

can you help me find more sources for the page Jowell & Randy, some user has put an ADF on it, because one source is from myspace. May you help me find sources? I worked hard on the article!--TrUcO9311 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I deleted List of Riddims because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Riddims was clearly a consensus to delete. — Scientizzle 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riddim List

Even though the riddim list article was deleted, I figured that you might want to check out these "riddim database" sites...[1] [2] Blackjays1 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what was wrong with the reference

on latino? Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me?!!! are you in some way suggesting that I am wishing to be Latino... even though my mother was Italian, therefore making her Latino anyway. My mother, my sister, and I, have always been classified as Latino... I do not need to 'convert' to anything as you are saying... I am happy being mediterranean! Even though mediterranean people are commonly Latino anyway... I suggest you go read your sources. I find that a very racist remark... both showing favouritisms to the Latino race, and prejudice agains Mediterraneans... even though they are the same thing! Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to make comments like this under WP:NPA and WP:CIV. If you are suggesting that Mediterranean people in Europe who stayed in Europe, are somehow different to the Meditteranean people of Portugal and Spain that moved to the Americas, then I seriously fail to see how that logic works. There have been no major evolutionary steps made by the Hispanics and Lusitanics since they moved away from the main Latin races of Europe, and therefore, they remain classifiable under the same race. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear... again, i suggest you calm down. Secondly, my age is irrelevant to this, (even though I was only a couple of IQ points off in an official Mensa test from being allowed in. I would like to remind you on this that Mensa is a society for geniuses, so please try not to insult my intelligence again). Secondly, you are misunderstanding. Latinos are not from Latin America. I dont know where you got this idea from, but I am sure it is wrong. Latinos are people of Latin Europe (which you made a mention of), who relocated to the Americas. This then became known as Latin America. Now in America, the term Latinos commonly is applid to people of Latin America. However, by definition, and also as is implied by the European term usage of Latino, it is any Caucasion of Mediterranean origin, wherever they reside in the world. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent lack of civility

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Iamandrewrice. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeffpw (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd warning

With regard to your comments on User talk:Iamandrewrice: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jeffpw (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your warning

I have not been uncivil to Jeeny, and in fact, I am mentoring heras a condition of her unblocking. PLease do not give warnings out which you cannot back up with diffs. That can also be seen as both an attack and a violation of our harassment policy. Thank you. Jeffpw (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here is some proof...

[3] Press Ctrl+F (this is the 'find tool'... if you have used it before), and type in "Latino is very general". It will bring you to a paragraph of the page which explains that the term 'Latino' does in fact technically include mediterranean people still living in Europe, but in everyday conversation is sometimes not used like this, and I can see that you are in yourself perhaps evidence of this. Therefore, I am right about its definition... it just that in the USA, where mediterranean peoples are of less relevance than the nearby Latin-Americans, the Latin-Americans are more commonly reffered to as the Latinos... although when it comes to technicalities, and people are discussing the Latinos in Europe, they will use the term 'Latino'. Do you now agree? (and please... no more of the uncivility please... wikipedia is meant to be a place of civil behaviour by everyone. You are not exempt from this rule.) Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

In this edit, you call me and another editor maricons. That kind of homophobic name calling is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If I see any more garbage like that from you I will move for an immediate block of your editing privileges. Jeffpw (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your recent behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. Despite warnings you have attacked other editors: [4], [5] . You then aggressively cross-posted to a number of users using a homophobic slur to describe those you were in dispute with [6]. Accordingly I have blocked you for 48 hours from editing. You are free to resume positive contributions after that time is up but bear in mind that personal attacks and homophobic abuse will not be tolerated. WjBscribe 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY ANGRY at the moment, and as I have just learnt wikipedia users seem to have a opposition to the use of swear words, but not other insults. So I will try my hardest to refraim from using swears. Now regarding all that has recently happened with the users I was blocked from editing as a result I would like to say my opinion as I am entitled to it. Now the adminstrator who has blocked me has firstly said despite warnings I have attacked other editors and provided the cases in which I attacked the editors. First of all, I admit that the first example was an attack which I was then warned for and was not even aware of this policy until the user warned me. So this first attack was due to me being unaware. Then the same editor who issued me the first warning isssued me with a second one when I did not even attck the editor he was defending, and that warning was uncalled for. Although this example was not used by the editor who blocked me. Then the second example he used I totally disagree with! I don't see at all how I was attacking the user in fact I was telling him to leave me alone and from the tone of my comment, any third party could infer that it was a comment intended to halt communication. I said "Fuck off", but anyone understands what that means and knows that it is most certaintly not an attack! Then this user who blocked me goes on to say I "aggressively cross-posted to a number of users using a homophobic slur to describe those you were in dispute with". AGGRESSIVLEY? I have no idea how my comments in any way were aggressive! I was simply stating my situations to those users, and as they are all apart of the wikiproject:Latinos, a project intended to improve articles relating to Latinos, I thought they could help me explain the concept to the original user I commented to and prevent the second user from bullying me when I was trying to help. As for homophobic slur? WTF! The word I used in my comments was "maricons" which is literally the spanish translation for queers, something that both this user have added to their pages as being proud to be! I am NOT a homophobe at all and in fact, not that it really anyones business but will further help my argument, my cousin is a maricon (He himself identifies with this term). I have felt really hurt by this as it originally started as me trying to help a misinformed user and then I was ganged up on by both these users, who have also now realised somewhat my point judging from their discussions with each other following this incident. Something which I was trying to inform them of. So please may I be unblocked, as I am over these ignorant users and no longer wish to communicate with them anyway, which is what I was originally planning on doing as you can see in my attack.

Decline reason:

Blatant personal attacks and incivility. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to launch personal attacks or to go around telling people to "fuck off". That you are continuing your personal attacks in your unblock request ("these ignorant users") shows that you are still not ready to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The block is entirely appropriate. — Yamla (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For what its worth, the guy is a bigot. See the discussion page for Mario Vasquez. Arguing and being petty are one thing, being a bigoted piece of shit is another. Period. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla

Aright well let me ask you a question then. If I had said leave me alone would have that been taken as an attack? And as you already read the first attack was out of unawareness of EVERY wikipedia policy, honestly do you know how long it would take to read them all! And ignorance, think about that word for a minute. Is calling a user ignorant when they post a comment like this, "Even though mediterranean people are commonly Latino anyway", a personal attack? I don't know why dont you go ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos or any one of the wikipedians belonging to the Category:Latino/Hispanic Wikipedians. Once you have done that get back to me please.TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Leave me alone" is possibly uncivil, it would depend on the context. Calling a user ignorant is unambiguously a violation of WP:NPA. --Yamla (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late now buddy! Read my comments to find out why I will not debate on this any longer, as I can not be bothered. And regarding your second comment, oh I'm sorry I wasn't aware that you asked the users I mentioned before replying, oh yeh that's right you didn't! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Again

Now I'm just writing to make people aware of the Fact that Yamla has chosen not to aknowledge my comment made to him, and has in fact completely disregarded it. I know this to be true for the simple fact that I posted it yesterday at 18:17, 29 November 2007 and since then he has made multiple edits to wikipedia, the latest being at 02:38, 30 November 2007. He has no excuse either because I further went and took the liberty to send him an email to his personal email left on his user page , saying the exact same thing on my user page in case he was not watching my user page. Either way it is quite clear that he has disregarded my comments and won't even do me the dignity of replying. I would also like to say that of all the edits he has since made since I posted my comment, not one has been of him asking the opinion of the people I suggested. My only conclusion as to why this is, is that deep down he knows that I am right and does not wish to debate with me in the case of him losing credibility in some way. So if he does not reply at least to this comment, I will know the previous sentence holds truth. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits (Dec 2007)

Hello and a qualified welcome back. I see you've returned after the block (which expired a week go - it's sometimes a good idea to take a cooling-off period after such a thing happens so kudos to you).

Yes, it seems that Iamandrewrice was gaming the system. That user is now banned (as distinct from blocked - see User talk:Just2saythis for the difference.

However your recent edits are causing concern. The fact that you (and others) were taken in by a sockpuppetteer in no way excludes you from the Wikipedia policy on civility. Please refrain, however hard-done-by you feel, from edits summaries like this and from any further use of derogatory terms like this. Hopefully you can now put this behind you and return to the task we're all here for - that of producing an outstanding encyclopædia. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, getting blocked can be bloody annoying (I had to go to the pub once to calm down after being autoblocked, but then any excuse to go down the pub ☺). I personally don't mind sweariness, the trouble is that others do mind it, and, another thing, Wikipedia has to protect itself. How about some journalist with a spare afternoon going through edit summaries and announcing to the world that WP is a SWAMP OF FOUL LANGUAGE FOR OUR KIDS (if you're in the UK you'll know what I mean if I say I can just see the Daily Mail running with that one). As regards "maricon", you say above that your brother is gay and doesn't object to the term. Fair enough; I don't object to the term "Dirty Northern Bastard" from my mate down the pub (who is, of course, a "Soft Southern Jessie") but editors have to assume that someone on the other end of a conversation will object unless proven otherwise.
As to how you were picked up so quickly? ~~I'm feckin good dude~~ Following the Iamandrewrice storm quite a few people are keeping an eye on quite a few other peoples' talkpages and a report appeared on WP:AN/I.
As I say welcome back and keep it clean, dude. Cheers Tonywalton ^Talk 12:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above I have reverted your edit here, as being in contravention of WP:CIV. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory terminology

(Started a new section as this is a more general thread).

I do take your point - there's a very good editor on here who is openly gay and frankly finds it amusing when their talkpage is vandalised by people replacing it with "you=gay". As I said to him, that's exactly as derogatory as someone replacing my userpage with "you=straight". But you have to be careful, especially in an environment like this (online I mean, not specifically WP) because you can't know who is at the other end and how they'll take something which is frequently used as an insult by others even if you don't mean it as an insult in that specific situation. Also remember that on WP edits and summaries are generally available for anyone to view; anyone looking at them is "on the other end" in this context.

For another example, see Big_Brother_(TV_series)#United_Kingdom where controversy was caused by someone referring to themselves as a "Paki poof". They apparently had no problem with using the terms in connection with themselves; I doubt whether they'd have been quite so sanguine had some stranger in the street come up and called them it.

The upshot, as I see it, is that you (not you specifically, I mean all editors) have to be careful about what might cause offence. Call it PC if you will but we're here in collaboration to produce an encyclopædia and one of the easy ways of breaking that collaboration up is to either be insulting or to be perceived as insulting. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Because your obnoxious. If I wanted to help you in your little cat fight, I would have been messaged you. Get a hint. --EndlessDan 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. So long. --EndlessDan 15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Sombrero Barnstar Award

RE: Deleted pages

You need to set and confirm an email address in your Preferences for me to be able to email you the pages. Mr.Z-man 07:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jowell y randy

its iight...it remained an article and thats what is important.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages

Sorry, I forgot all about your request. My bad.

I restored the content you asked for at User:TeePee-20.7/Tiraera and User:TeePee-20.7/List of Riddims. When you're done with them, please mark them for deletion with the {{db-u1}} tag, or you can just contact me again. Hope this helps. Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dragonball (film)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your topic is merely a soapbox. I recommend you take your subject to somewhere else on the internet, like the IMDB. Alientraveller (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term tends to be steward, as ownership implies bullying, per WP:OWN. But yes, Erik (talk · contribs) and I are the stewards of the article. When the trailer arrives, we'll link it. Alientraveller (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subwoofer

It was about 190usd at the time (2005).Matias (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no concentration map for Latin America

I have removed the warning templates and script - I think we understand ourselves more. I think you will be satisfied with my last change to Chilean Australian.

Thank you for your understanding. If you find yourself in conflict with a snobbish square who is giving you hassle that you think is unjustified, call me. Kransky (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:African Australians

Category:African Australians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bochinche

I know you mean well, but you can't add rumors to pages unless you're going to add some actual references. Only one reference to tiraera on the Don Omar page had a reference, and you deleted it. The others don't (except for a youtube video, and those can't be used as references per wikipedia policy). It doesn't matter if you and I both know who he beefs with, there has to be references otherwise people will keep adding unsourced gossip like this is a reggaeton forum. No youtube videos, no message boards, just find some news articles as references, that's not too much to ask (especially about children info, that should be easy to find). 74.228.158.68 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Template

You forgot to ask a question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, talk about quick lol. I just tried to ask it and it came up with the edit conflict page lol. Okay well how do I create a template? I know how to create pages but I havn't found where I can create a template yet, can you please help? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Please see Help:Template. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I usually find all that coding to be beyond me, and just copy a template to my userspace that's similar to what I want to do, then edit it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, that's exactly what I do, I use other things as a basis to create something similar as all the coding and instructions I don't have the time or patients for. Anyway another user has kind of told me how so if I understand him correctly then I will try the way he said otherwise I will continue to ask. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don Omar Template:Don Omar Template:Reggaetón Template:Collapsible Lafooter Template:Lafooter Template:Collapsible Latino American topics Template:Latino American topics File:TeePee's Picture.jpg

Tego's gonna be in da fast n da furious 4...jus found out

yeah jus found out tego is gonna be in da movie also..jus thought u might like to kno...n here's da link <http://www.reggaetonea.com/artistas/tego-calderon/tego-calderon-y-vin-diesel-esperado-encuentro-en-the-fast-and-the-furious-4.html>

n how can i join da wikiprojrct reggaeton thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reisito4 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Give You the World"

Hi, I'll answer your question on why I moved "Give You The World" to "Give You the World". Though it make look dumb to you, Wikipedia articles should have "the" uncapitalized. - Holiday56 (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. - [7]

You're welcome. - Holiday56 (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defense - Machel Montano Song

Please stop your arbitrary changing of Defense to Defence on various articles. The actual title of the song is the American spelling, this is not subjective. Refer to [8] which is Machel Montano's official site for the track listing. I also have the album in hand. Rasadam (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Hello, I read your message, and although I am very interested in music, I don't believe I would be able to help you, as my understanding of Japanese is limited. I suggest asking someone listed under Category:Translators ja-en or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Music. I hope this helps. Good luck! --Kyoko 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, TeePee. My Japanese is limited also, though I could probably work through the charts you request. The larger problem is that I have no interest or knowledge in popular music, so the subject would be a bit out of my editing interest. Traditional or classical music would be more in my line. But keep asking around, and I'm sure you'll find a good Japanese-speaking, popular-music loving editor who will be willing and able to help. Happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your message, I would be glad to help, as I am Japanese myself. However, I have limited knowledge on popular music (I am more of a classical type), so I would be able to do translation of charts if you really want me to.Fieldmarhshal Miyagi (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TeePee! I'm also willing to help where I can. Unfortunately, I'm more of a Metal fan, but I could help, a little. For those that don't know, the Japanese charts are called Oricon.Green Runner 0 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...?

Hey bro, what's the deal with you? For almost a month now both you and I have been through a constant edit battle with a bunch of articles, most ones like Gasolina and the chronology issue we both had with Impacto and Mensaje de Estado. Okay, I get it. So I was wrong with what single came out first. So I stopped.

Also, what is the big deal with me making an article for Who's Your Daddy? Every other single from the album has had, so I thought maybe it was necessary to make another article. Instead of looking down on my one article, try looking at a bunch of others that hardly even have enough information to even have an article.

By the way, I honestly don't find this whole thing a big deal, but I kind of took notice that your taking this very seriously. This is actually the first time I feel I have to go to a talk page and leave this kind of message. El Cangri386 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology/Daddy Yankee template

Well hopefully we have gotten over the feud and can discuss over edits rather than reverting and taking out information and such. Also, I wanted to bring up another subject. You mentioned that adding the category "Other songs" to the Daddy Yankee template seemed unprofessional. Well as you mentioned before, "Mensaje de Estado" was never released as an official single. But I have heard it before on both premium and FM radio (which I am still figuring out how to cite that), so I thought it was a single. But since it wasn't, I also remembered that it also does have a music video and figured that it must've been a single. But since they're only for promotional purposes and has gotten a lot of attention, I wanted to see how I can mention the song in the template so that it makes sense and the singles chronology is not screwed up again.

BTW, thanks for taking the time for replying to my message. Sorry for my mediocre encyclopediac skills, but I am still learning. And your right, the world practically depends on Wikipedia for information, so I want to help contribute. And yes, thank to our little feud, we practically made Gasolina three times better now. So something good came out of it I guess. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by El cangri386 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How?

To join the Project:Reggaeton, how do I get my user name on the members list? Do I just edit it? Or simply put the userbox in my user page? The box IS in my page, but my name doesn't show up. El Cangri386 17:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improved Voltio album article

I tried and improved the article to "En Lo Claro", an album by Voltio. To try and fix my problem for editing an article, please look at it and compare it to the edit before mine as of 07:49, 10 April 2008 El Cangri386 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

I guess promo singles would work, but most people would mistake that for a regular single. I think if we change that to 'promo singles', then we should also change the 'singles' name too so that there is a big difference. I'll look more into it and let you know later. El Cangri386 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea

I used to have a load of free time to do all this wikipedia crap, but anyway, I actually like Jay-Z a lot and haven't updated my profile in a while.

Japanese music charts

Hi TeePee--thanks for your suggestion. I would love to look into these, but could you send me some examples of pages that have such references? It would be much easier to check for specific songs.

New single article (Needs improvement?)

I just made an article for an older Voltio song "Chulin Culin Chunfly." I am just a lil confused with how the single was distributed and the remix. Also, about the Daddy Yankee template, I feel that maybe it should be put back in the regular singles chronology, but then we would have to figure out WHEN the single came out, even though it was only a promo. IF we do, we need to know that "Impacto" WAS the first single, since that was actually announced as the first single on various sites and radio. If we don't changed it, then maybe we should just take it off the template and just leave the article as it is, with a link from the El Cartel: The Big Boss article. El Cangri386 00:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chulin Culin Chunfly - Song Title

I actually sourced that little thing on the paragraph regarding the title. I thought maybe people wouldn't pick up on what the definition means right away and those are not actual Spanish words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El cangri386 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Well I guess I'm going to have to read the policy more. lol. And yea, the single cover spells the song as "Chulin Culin Chunfly". I have made redirects of any other spelling like "Chulin Culin Cunflai", "Chulin Culin Chunfly (The Rattlesnake Song)" and others similar. You can see them all for yourself by clicking on the "What links here" link in the toolbox when you visit the article again. But yes it is printed the way it is on the single cover and I have obtained it from Amazon.com. So I'm sure that is a trustworthy site for images.

BTW, yes I am in an edit battle right now with another user on the article regarding "subheads" if you peek at his talk page on the issue. Apparently it is not "professional" to have information spread out like that. I have explained saying I am still trying to find more information for the article to fill in but insists on keeping the paragraph-length article. I'm going to figure out how to fix the issue. El Cangri386 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me something. The article is a stub in prose form. Do you really think that padding it out with subheads, and insisting on repetitious information, somehow makes it not a stub? It is substance that is important to Wikipedia, not articles made to look like a large infobox beside a smaller infobox. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the article is not a stub in prose form. You're just a hater picking on a new user, because of your own ego trip. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub in both forms. I edit hopefully to improve content in Wikipedia. I don't have an ego trip. I have more experience than some, especially in the general writing and editing fields. I didn't know you were a new user, don't know you, and don't hate you. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user and if I take the time to look I have probably been editing longer than you have. I was referring to ElCangri386 who you have been in an edit war with, that user is only trying his best to improve articles and he is still fairly new so he is still learning. I am aware it is a stub in both forms, but the form it is in now follows the same layout as other singles articles, and is the best layout to have for a popular single. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make it clear you were talking about someone else. If you are a long term editor here then you should know by now about ambiguity. Furthermore, if you have been editing Wiki longer than five years and a bit then you have been here longer then me. You say the singles article is the best layout. I say it is so sophomoric it makes me shudder. Wonder where RickK is these days. Maybe it's because all of the RickK's left that Wiki is such a dog's breakfast these days. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did make it clear you just didn't take the time to read carefully. And if you have been editing wikpedia for more than 5 years then you have been editing longer than me, funny though because I checked your first edit for this account and it is "02:11, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Josh Griffith‎". If you do the math, this is less than half a year. So either it took you 4 years to decide to make an account, or you have been changing accounts alot for some reason.....hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voltio (album)

I have updated the Voltio (album) article since there was hardly any information on it. Check it out for yourself and see if there is anything that needs to be fixed. El Cangri386 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TeePee's Picture.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TeePee's Picture.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article created unrelated to Reggaeton

I just created an article for a new single, but it is not a reggaeton single. It is the second single by Madonna for her album Hard Candy, and it's called "Give It 2 Me." I just want to make sure it sounds good, so please check it out and see if there's anything that needs to be fixed. Thanks. El Cangri386 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't new, but was originally a redirect page before Hard Candy was released. All I did was update it since it was confirmed to be released as a single. El Cangri386 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: San Juan Sounds

I will listen to it, count them, write each of them down, and get back at you when i finish researching, it seems that there is less, but i will confirm.King Cangri (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kransky's BS future excuses

I stopped editing this article as I lost interest in it and chose to edit other articles. <(False! He only stopped because he knew I was in the zone and he didn't want this going to a third party while I was on top and knew every detail to counter what ever he had against me.)

I stopped editing because I wasn't aware it was changed. <(False! He had it on his watchlist and would have been aware of my edits changing it.)

Regarding your discussion on Chilean Australian, could you please observe WP:CIVIL please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talento de Barrio

lol yea I know. Sorry. I was trying to make sure that they had sources so that it was proven that they were actual tracks. I'm going to try and find the tracks that WERE listed and see if there are any trustworthy websites that I can reference.

Like I said, yea I gotta learn to stop. I'm still gonna try and find sources for those deleted tracks. El Cangri386 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcangel y De La Ghetto

I have created yet another page, for the reggaeton artist Arcangel. I also plan to work on the Arcangel y De La Ghetto article since it obviously looks like it could use some work. Please check out the article and see if there is anything that needs to be fixed. El Cangri386 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TeePee-20.7

You are quite right that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TeePee-20.7 isn't done right. Also, nobody else has signed it. So it will be deleted in about 24 hours. Until then it is best to leave it. It may not be a good RfC, but it is not an attack page I think. Please be patient. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment, even if filled in correctly, is going to contain criticisms, and not necessarily fair or accurate ones. Have a look at this one. Not very nice, is it? More can be found here. I can accept that you feel as though you are under attack, but there's no reason for you to think that way. An RfC which isn't filled in right, or which isn't certified by two people, counts for nothing. It's as if it was never there in the first place. Well, almost as if. People who frivolously file RfCs aren't doing themselves any favours.

Please, forget about this. There's nothing that's happened here you should be concerned about. You're probably right, it's not fair, but it's how things are done. It wasn't an attack page and Kransky agreed to get rid of it. If there's anything I can do to help that doesn't involve punishing Kransky - we just don't do that - please let me know and I'll see what I can do. If you can explain the trouble to me, I can try to find a solution, or if not I can find someone who can try to find one. Very best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that you and Kransky disagree mostly about the Chilean Embassy paper's place, if any, if you don't get anywhere with the RfC, you can ask here. Alternatively, you could look for more sources. Anything in journals, newspapers, books, on TV or radio? Have any PhDs been written about Chilean-Australians. Don't forget that people back in Chile may be writing or talking about the "Chilean Diaspora" in Australia, so there could be sources there. There's a Chile wikiproject you could ask at. You won't get results from an RfC or a third opinion right away. While you're waiting, there's no need to argue back and forth. This doesn't help anyone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove those sort of tags yourself from your talk page, for any reason, or for no reason at all. I've done it for you this time, but really it's up to you. I don't want to start a discussion over who is right and who is wrong. Chilean-Australians is not something I have any opinions on. You've asked for outside opinions, so that's good. But you both need to pay attention to what Blnguyen said. Civility is important, and it isn't optional. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So now I am furious with him and really feel he needs to be dealt with concerning the rfc issue." But the RfC has been dealt with and being furious is only going to make things worse. Calling someone childish is not civil. You aren't helping yourself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, as expected, being furious is making things worse. I already commented on the RfC. "A request for comment, even if filled in correctly, is going to contain criticisms, and not necessarily fair or accurate ones." That needn't make it an attack page. Let me be blunt. If you do not listen to what you've been told, there will be consequences. Calling Kransky a liar, is not acceptable. This should be obvious. If you are not clear about what is expected of you, this would be the time to (re)read Wikipedia:Civility. Ask me if you don't understand something.

You really have just two choices, either to deal with Kransky civilly, or not to deal with Kransky at all. If you continue to post incivil messages you're inevitably going to be blocked, if not by me then by someone else. Please stop and think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

In response to your request regarding: Tôi cũng biết nói tiếng Việt với trình độ trung bình. Anh/Chị học tiếng Việt ở đâu? Here is a translation: "I also speak Vietnamese at an intermediate level. Where did you study Vietnamese?" Aaron Lee (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the second sentence would be "Where do you study Vietnamese?", not did. Alvin6226 ^talk 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It can mean either do or did. The tense is implied, not inherent. Aaron Lee (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I asked you above to stop and think and to observe WP:CIVIL. Blnguyen asked the same thing. Instead, about the first thing you do is to leave me another message here where you call Kransky a liar again, the very thing I asked you not to do earlier. Since you appear unwilling to stop acting incivilly I have blocked you for 24 hours. When the block expires, please do not return to this unacceptable sort of behaviour. You can use the {{unblock}} template to request unblocking if you believe my decision was unjustified, or if you will undertake not to repeat this behaviour. Unfortunately I will be offline for a while now, but I hope you will make the necessary undertaking. If you do, I am entirely happy that you should be unblocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I left the administrator this message and he retaliates by blocking me! I plead that any administrator performing a review follow the quote on unblocking “administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined." And do not decline my request by only reading selected sections. This may take a while so please only if you are willing to take the time to read everything that has happened and make a fair judgement, do I ask you comment. And also as I will obviously want to discuss this further could you put my talkpage on your watchpage so we can continue further discussion. Thankyou. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You called another user a "liar", which is a direct and simple violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies. You were told of these policies, and of the consequences of violating them. You violated them. You got the consequesnces you were promised. I fail to see how this is unexpected. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sigh, you fail to see as you did not follow my instructions before becoming involved! If you had followed the quote provided under Unblocking on Wikipedia:Blocking Policy you would see. But you just like this administrator have chosen to do the wrong thing and not view the full facts before declining my block request. First of all get your facts straight! The first incidence I did not call Kransky a liar specifically, I only said he was lying which he was and was in breach of civility dot point 9 which I made reference to in my reply to Angus. He chose to ignore this and you arrogantly have chosen to respond and not even respect my request by familiarizing yourself with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined", which you are expected to do! Saying he is lying is neither in breach of no personal attacks or civility, and is only highlighting the fact that he himself is in breach of civility, and is commenting on the act and not the editor. Angus himself was breaching civility per "this policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors" as he falsely quoted me and in doing so breached dot point 9 and 10 of "Engaging in incivility". And then I was warned per civility thus making the warning invailid, as I did not breach it! So then I replied to Angus saying I have (although I did not) every right in calling Kransky a liar as he did lie and breached civility (Let me remind you that Liar is the noun for the adjective lying), thus making me breach policy per no personal attacks by commenting on the User and not his contributions. I would not have done this if Angus had not falsely accused me of saying something which I did not and in doing so breaching wikipedia policies! The only reason he blocked me is because he knows I am right and he does not want to deal with the issues I have brought to his attention. I do not believe Administrators should be treated any differently to Editors and I do not think I am deserving of a block. I have not made unconstructive edits and am only trying to improve the article which is where all this drama started from. Jayron as you seem unable to respect my request and do what is expected of you I am posting another unblock request which you should not answer to. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This now applies to you MangoJuice! Where do you get off in saying it has been reviewed by several people?! It was reviewed by one editor who did not do what was expected of him and view the full facts. And I see you have now done this by your comment "This whole topic area of ethnicity and nationality that you've been getting into tense situations over is a very touchy area and I think that's why you were warned to stop" I was warned to stop because apparently of the above, so read it as it applies to you now. I did not call him a liar until Angus breaching civility forced it out of my mouth! He has dealt with this in wrong manner, and has blocked me based on emotion. The block is unreasonable especially seeing how I would not have said the noun liar if it were not for Angus breaching civility. Don't tell me to calm down when I have been treated badly in this whole situation and no one else but me has suffered any consequences for their wrong doing! What world do we live in? What ever happened to fairness?! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unblocked right now. All it takes is your assurance that you will do your best - I don't expect perfection - to edit in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. No more "lies" or "liar", comment on the content, not the editor. Since every editor on Wikipedia is expected to abide by these policies, this is not asking much. Over to you, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure you want to make that offer available? I am still upset with you for what you did and you should look at my reply to your comment you just made for clarification. Just because you offered to unblock me doesn't mean I will not be following through on my comments I made. And with all due respect, seems like that's what you want perfection. Something you should know about me is I respect who respects me and treat others how they treat me. I am all about fairness, and you are quite evidently not. I said "lying" because he did "lie", thereby making him a _ _ _ _ ! I'll let you play hangman to figure out what that means. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting further review until an administrator can do what is expected of them and "familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined.". Thankyou. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Simply put, no. This request has already been reviewed by several people, and like them I've investigated enough to see that you called someone a liar based on your own opinion. I agree with Ned that this by itself is a pretty mild WP:CIV violation, but the whole picture here is bigger. This whole topic area of ethnicity and nationality that you've been getting into tense situations over is a very touchy area and I think that's why you were warned to stop. In any case, even if I wouldn't have blocked you that doesn't mean I'm going to call the block unreasonable, which is what I would need to do before considering an unblock. Besides, this is a mere 24-hour block and doesn't merit such a deep level of scrutiny. Just try to calm down and keep your comments impersonal when you return. Mango juice^talk 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You can get blocked for calling someone a liar? That's pretty messed up, if you ask me. Would it mean something different if he said "I don't believe what you just said was true"? No, it would mean the exact same thing. And we sure as heck don't block editors for such statements. -- Ned Scott 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, there might be more to this, and maybe the block is called for.., but the cited diff for this block just doesn't... seem to really be a big deal. -- Ned Scott 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking some time to look at this issue Ned, and no this block is not deserving and I am not being unconstructive and in fact Kransky has been the instigator in this entire issue, if it weren't for him I would not even be in this position. But if you wish to take further time to read the history leading up to my current blocking you can see I have been hardly done by. This is the thing with some administrators they tend to ego-trip with their power and forget all the same rules apply to them and they are no different from us editors. Adminship is no big deal and I hate when they have that whole tone like it is. He blocked me because he could not answer the reply I directed to him since 16:58, 12 May 2008 concerning the rfc Kransky made about me which served no purpose but to disparage me. All this you can view in the history by the way, that is if you want a good read on how non-helpful this administrator(Angus) has been in the whole issue. He blocks me for my edits which says Kransky is lying, yet he said he does not want to read the discussion on the Chilean Australian page thereby not even making an attempt to see if what I was saying is true. This administrator has behaved inappropriately and I will without a doubt be reporting this to WP:Dispute Resolution after my block. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to User talk:Blnguyen, Talk:Chilean Australian, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or User talk:Angusmclellan and make up your own mind. Maybe you will agree with me that the block is warranted. Maybe you won't. I can only imagine what Chilean Australians are thinking about this fuss over them....Kransky (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have clear diffs of incivility instead of links to long, rambling talkpages? SQL ^{Query me!} 15:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse chronological order.

"I have every right calling him a liar"
"This is completely false and once again Kransky is lying!", also cut and pasted to Talk:Geography and Talk:Australia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile
... you are a liar ...

Now, TeePee-20.7 knows what WP:CIV is. He knew before Blnguyen mentioned it as seen here. He was asked to stop. He didn't stop. He got blocked. He knows why he got blocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)(I hadn't noticed that this one was already reviewed) Yep, That'd do it. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I forgot about the edit where I call him a liar on your talkpage (which you did not warn me for or even use as a diff) but how validated I feel in calling him one! Because even though he now knows that I am aware of the fact that he is lying and he will be under close scrutiny, he continues to lie here and here and here and here! But I will still be taking this to WP:Dispute Resolution as you did not go about this in the correct manner and breached civility. Blocking me for 24hrs over something trivial! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

TeePee, this is a friendly suggestion that you calm down on the talk page of Chilean Australian. There is no hurry and the matter will get resolved, so please do yourself the favor of not getting yourself blocked over nothing. Also the way that you commented on the page has made the thread very confusing. It is better to sum up your commentary at the end than to insert new commentary between virtually every other set of comments on the page, especially when there really isn't much that is being argued between you and Kransky in the first place. The issues are pretty simple as I see them. 1) There is good reason to believe that the self-reportage of "Chilean ancestry" is very misleading, and the ABS itself admits this. Without another good reliable source we really only have the ABS source to use in addressing the nature of their results. 2) The Chilean embasssy makes an "educated guess" at a much higher figure. This cannot be presented factually (as you are currently doing), because it simply is not a reliable source for that kind of factual statement. We have no idea how this figure was arrived at and who (I was assuming it was the intern myself) arrived at it in the first place. That said, it is of interest that they have made this educated guess and it can be presented with the correct attribution and without suggesting that this guess is the result of scientific methodologies. Should there be a RS available that shows a scientific basis for this claim then this will change. Please tell me if you take issue with either of these to things. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely calm and do not need to calm down. I did not make it confusing I just added where my comments would have been if it were not for me being blocked by telling the truth. 1)The ABS data is confusing to people like Kransky who don't understand it, as you can see in my comments I have explained the logic of it so you should now understand. 2) It is a reliable source and has been verified by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. This can and is being presented factually and your opinion is based on Kranskys biased opinion polluting your head. If you take the time to read further you will understand why this is not in fact the interns estimates and why it is the Embassy's information. The data provided by the Embassy does not conflict with the data provided by the ABS. I am not sure why you do not understand this as I have now explained it on the Chilean Australian discussion page, so my request to you is that you read my replies to everyone's comments for clarification. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to take my advice about calming down then its your loss, but it was a friendly piece of advice that I wont make again. The source is not reliable for facts and the RS Noticeboard did not tell you anything other than that. Your statement above is entirely false: "It is a reliable source and has been verified by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." I know this because I am one of two editors who commented there. The fact that the source is quite possible accurate, at least in asserting a higher figure than the ABS because clearly the ABS data suffers from various problems, does not make the source reliable. I'm sorry but you need to familiarize yourself with the conventions here for reliability. The embassy website is not de facto reliable for demographics. They are clearly just making an educated guess. The suggestion is that you can use the source but only if you correctly attribute it. This means mentioning the embassy and mentioning the nature of the claim, since it is not as far as anyone can tell derived from scientific methodologies. Again, like I said, it is very possible that they are entirely correct, but that does not make the source of this data reliable. I am not confused, nor are most people in the discussion. That is something else you need to accept here, because if you continue to claim this someone will soon take offense.PelleSmith (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it would not be accurate. It seems very logical to me ad as it is the Embassy who provides this data why would it not be accurate? They have to them available all the data concering immigration of Chileans and Chilean Australians, so who better to make this very realistic assumption? This view is futher supported by the new reference provided by Matilda and is quite realistic to assume their have been 5,000 more Chilean Australians in the time from 2001 - 2006. I don't see what the problem is with the embassy's estimates. They are in the best position to make this guess. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with what is most probably true, but with what we can claim as reliably sourced'. I think you are having a problem separating the two. The new source is a reliable source, but as others on the talk page have been trying to tell you, the embassy's "assumptions", however accurate they may be, are still not reliable. The embassy's assumptions cannot be presented as factual. They are not experts on demography, and they have not shown any application of a scientific methodology. Their conclusion is certainly not published in a peer reviewed journal or by an academic press. You need to have a look at the relevant guidelines and policies and hopefully doing so will make this clear: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will look at the links you have provided, but the many sources which the embassy have would include demographers. They have mostly incorporated this into their assumption and I still don't know why you think they can't be presented as factual, when they are. And this has been futher supported by the new data found by Matilda provided by the demographer Jupps. Kransky mentioned he has met him so I wonder what his view on this would be. I am most certain he would agree with the Embassy's estimates as his work was published in 2001 based on the 1996 census and the Embassy's was last updated in June 2006 based on the 2001 census. The Chilean Embassy has access to all the sources including demographers, how are they not reliable? But like I said I will take the time to read the links. Please respond to me based on what I have just said to you. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your arguments I think you very much so need to read up on our policy regarding sources. Even with the new source we cannot present the 40,000 as factual, since it is an educated guess. What makes the new source better is that it is an educated guess by a known expert in the field. Your assumption about the embassy is not necessarily true and it is no more than an assumption. We have no idea who made the embassy's educated guess and that's exactly the point. Please do read up on those links and try to wrap your head around those guidelines. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I will and if I find it can be used as an RS I will be making this quite certain. The new source is and educated guess by a known expert in the field, but what makes it reliable. The fact he has said it? Or the fact it has been published? Because if what Kransky said is true and not a random comment to make himself look better, then Kransky may be able to contact him about this and then he can come and edit himself using himself as a reference. Because as I said earlier I am quite certain the number would have increased in the 5 years and the 5 000 increase seems quite reasonable, and I'm sure Mr. Jupps would agree. But also if what your saying is true, then I am extremely disapointed because upon learning this you will find out that most the article is referenced by the Chilean Embassy, even the parts in Kransky's revision. So if it is not an RS like you say, even though Itsmejudith has lead me to believe otherwise, then a whole major revision on the article is needed with new sources provided. Which really to me seems like it would not improve the article at all and instead worsen it a great deal. Please reply to me TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, SQL, Matilda, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided below. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop leaving me messages

TeePee you have exhausted my patience. Read the relevant policies and leave me alone. I will not comment on this issue any further. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of reference

Even though the first link is a blog, the interview with the Chilean historian living in Australia answers questions regarding a few of the sources we are using. At best you can use it as a personal point of reference.

http://boletinrsf.blogcindario.com/2005/09/00102-el-historiador-y-escritor-gustavo-martin-montenegro-chilenos-del-exterior-son-mas-de-1-200-mil.html

Also here is the PDF file from the Chilean National Institute of Statistics that is brought up in the interview and is a valid source.

http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/chilenos_exterior/registro_chilenos_exterior.pdf Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Matilda to comments made at Talk:Chilean Australians

I refer to your comment addressed to me recently at Talk:Chilean Australian - as you used the word "you" I take them personally but chose to respond here rather than at the article talk page as I find we are going over old ground. Please bear with me and clarify for me point by point. You said:

You would not find my comments unclear had you taken the time to read them thoroughly. This is something expected of you as third parties to do before you become involved and is all I have ever asked, and you missing keypoints to my argument is what happens when you do not make sure you aquaint yourself with the full facts. I have also explained that the Embassy provides as much methodolgy as Jeff Jupp's does in his estimation, except the Embassy's number outdates Jupp's number. All you see is personal attacks is because you are taking what I say to heart instead of reading and understanding what I say to you. Why is it that I have not needed to explain myself the way I have with you, Kransky and AussieLegend to Pippu? It is because he does understand and I can quite clearly see from his replies that he is reading mine. I do not need to learn how to cite properly there is nothing wrong with my citation. You need to learn how to read properly and thoroughly and not have such a quick tongue in this matters. Again don't take this to heart and hear what I am saying to you.

''You would not find my comments unclear had you taken the time to read them thoroughly: I have read the talk page comments very thoroughly and the article history. This is something expected of you as third parties ... - we come to this discussion in good faith - your assumption that we have not read the discussion thoroughly is a statement of bad faith and is against Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your edits seem to me to quite frequently not meet the guideline.
...you missing keypoints to my argument ... one of the problems is you express yourself poorly and you have too many edits on the talk page going over the same ground. You have also not listened to others and just ploughed on and made edits to the article page against the consensus of the discussion on the talk page. I also just happen to disagree with you and I think I can state quite fairly that I am a much more experienced editor than you are when it comes to Wikipedia policies about reliable sources for example - the locus of this dispute. Moreover, I am not the only experienced editor who has taken issue with your views. You chose not to believe any of us. But you even you confess that you hadn't even got around to reading the guidelines and policies before entering into the debate. Once you had read them, it seems to me on the basis of the arguments you are still mounting, you have not understood them. Once again I challenge you with respect to the guideline on reliable sources - see WP:RS - how does the Embassy of Chile in Australia meet that guideline? - quote me some words from that guideline to substantiate your claim.
...the Embassy provides as much methodolgy as Jeff Jupp's does in his estimation, except the Embassy's number outdates Jupp's number. Do you not understand that Jupp is a reliable source because - as per the guideline
- He is a scholar - has a PhD - is employed in immigration studies (therefore useful to cite in this context) see http://www.expertguide.com.au/!DrJamesJupp!_3205.aspx He has written extensively in scholarly works and is cited. See [9] The book is published by Cambridge University Press - it would have been peer reviewed before publication. The book deals directly with the topic. It meets the guideline! He doesn't have to provide details of his methodology because he is an authoratitive source and moreover he qualifies the figure as he states

"Although we do not have accurate figures, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today"

- As per Pippu's comments on the article talk page at 06:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) : TeePee, Matilda's reference explains what the 40,000 comprises (Chilean-born plus their Australian born children). I think that everyone would agree that this is better defined than the "ancestry" question in the ABS stats, which are clearly flawed (and it's on that point that I have been agreeing with you all along). Re this other figure of 45,000, I can see how one could get up to that figure if you start adding Australian-born grandchildren (which would only have started happening in recent years in any significant numbers). But - do we know for sure that the 45,000 figure includes that? In fact, do we know for sure what the 45,000 is meant to represent? That's the problem that people are having with that number, and that's why this other number of 40,000 is so much more acceptable - there is greater clarity about what it is measuring (not to mention that it's a pretty good source to begin with).
Why is it that I have not needed to explain myself the way I have with you, Kransky and AussieLegend to Pippu - I regard this as commenting on contributors and not content and thus breaching guidelines. I think in fact you will find that Pippu might be more sympathetic in the way he addresses remarks to you but he actually does not agree with you any more than we do. Others have difficulty with your position to for example PelleSmith stated at 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) : I find it hard to understand why TeePee, after all this discussion and his claim to have read our RS and V guidelines has again reinserted "factual" sounding language into the entry about the 45,000 figure that is not attributed to either Nadine or the embassy, and that does not accurately reflect the fact that it is no more than an educated guess. And he goes on to observe TeePee you are the only person who disagrees with Kransky's version. The rest of us were trying to figure out how to insert the language from the embassy, but that was peripheral to the fact that we all think the basic version of Kransky is OK.
I do not need to learn how to cite properly there is nothing wrong with my citation. You do indeed fail to cite specifically enough for anybody to make sense of what you are saying. That is why you are having problems on the article talk page. I am not the only person who has drawn this to your attention. For example AussieLegend mentioned it at 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Moreover

I have set out how things should be cited using the relevant templates which give key information such as when written and who published.

You need to learn how to read properly and thoroughly and not have such a quick tongue in this matters. - sorry but the person who is having a dispute with the rest of the world needs to look at himself first.

At this point I have to say that I find your editing disruptive. For example your edit first thing on the 18th of May (AEST). We have actually reached consensus on the talk page - ie all but a majority - with you as the only dissenting voice.

I propose to allow others to comment and refine the proposed words if necessary. Then it will go in the article. If I find any further edits from you undoing such an edit in the article - as you have done in the past against talk page consensus - I will block you for disruptive editing. --Matilda ^talk 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this edit when I had indeed referenced my inclusion of Pippu with a timestamp reference

Your edit removed my assertion of Pippu's support even though I had referenced that edit with the time stamp 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC) which allowed you to find that it was this edit to which I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chilean_Australian&diff=213225187&oldid=213195157 where he said "that's precisely what I'm getting at - hard to argue with what you have written." How is this me ""falsely added him in" ? This is your very last warning for disruptive editing. --Matilda ^talk 06:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I barely know Matilda and I don't know them outside Wikipedia. Accusing me as a socket puppet is assuming bad faith and FYI I'm not a socket puppet of anyone on any Wikimedia projects)! Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a life outside Wiki which means I can't reply when you want. I warned you for your edits to Matilda's talk page which you were not assuming good faith and border-line uncivil to them. I'm not going to comment on Matilda's edit as I've not read them (I'm not warning someone when I haven't read there edits) and even if another other editor is in beach of a policy it doesn't mean you can do the same. Other admins can look at the comments as I do not have time to read them as I'm currently busy. Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't give you the right to be uncivil and not assuming good faith to your fellow editors if you assume Matilda is acting in bad faith! If you felt that they were acting in bad faith then you should have taken it to ANI. Also Wikipedia isn't a game. Bidgee (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ani#Uncivil_user

A user has raised concerns about your behavior and it has been brought to WP:ANI. I thought you should know. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chilean Australian. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sugesst that you read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Unrelated users reverting edits isn't a breach of 3RR. "The rule applies per editor" and you're very close to breaking it. I suggest you don't. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted, excessive length block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for an excessive amount of time by an editor who has been involved in this matter, who has not even notified me on this block or provided diffs upon blocking. What is his "good reason" for not doing this? I have been blocked unfairly and treated unequally in comparison to all other involved editors who have committed constant offences on wikipedia policies and guidlines. They cited my good faith edits to improve the article as going against "concensous" when there clearly is no concensous and they have no idea on what the concensous is! I have used the talkpage excessively to bring up the points of concern relating to the article and have constantly had these specific points not answered! They never seem willing at all to address the topic and always go against me simply for the fact it is me. They have worked as a tag-team in taking ownership over this article using so-called "concensous" as an excuse for their reversions to poorly written revisions, and this you can quite clearly see are not concensous versions as they have been constantly changing the article because they are not even sure on the edits they are making to it. The reason I have been treated so unfairly in this matter by alot of them is because they have all taken offense for me pointing out their own mistakes in not knowing all the facts before becoming involved. But this is not my fault in any way as I have always tried my best to remain civil and not offend them, but when you tell someone they are wrong alot of people are too stubborn or unwilling to admit it, this is a poor human quality which seems to affect alot of us. I think this last comment is what pushed Blnguyen to block me, in which she once again games the system in using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that I'm editing in bad faith, which I have never done once and all my edits have been to improve Chilean Australian rather than to damage it. I have once again been treated unfairly for trying to help the community and have had my block given by a biased editor who may have been offended by me in the past which has permanently left a first impression on him in which has lead up to this excessive block. Really the whole saga of this issue can be written into a long book as that is how long it has been happening for now. Go ahead and read up on the article yourself and view it's current condition, alot of which I a directly responsible for although no one seems to attribute or aknowledge this to me. Really I came here to help and it's people like Matilda, Kransky, AussieLegend and PelleSmith who misuse and abuse of wikipedia, which are making good people leave. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

reason — block expired yesterday. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Rlevse, no it didn't. Although you probably don't want to waste your time reading everything that has happened in relation to the article, and honestly I don't blame you because I have been the victim in this and even I am now sick of reading it all just to defend myself. It's the only real way you can understand all that has lead me to being in a state where I feel anything I say is hopeless and the conclusion that wikipedia isn't a place for fair treatment. It would be great if you did unblock me because then I would like, I mean if you wanted to, for you to keep tabs on my contributions to the article and it's talkpage and then you would be able to see for yourself that I am doing nothing but try and improve the article. As I have already made mention, sacrificing personal information in order for them to see I only wish the best for the article, I am the article, as I am a Chilean Australian. The information supplied by wikipedia relates directly to me and my community and that is why I have so passionately been involved in this article. It has now been more than two days, two days in which my vital input into the problems associated with the article have not been there and as a result many people have been further influenced by people not willing to aknowledge and fix all the flaws. Sigh, I wish my community all knew what I was going through for them because at least I know they would appreciate me. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring and show no intention of stopping. Simply because you are engaging in discussion does not mean you cannot be blocked. Discussion needs to come to a consensus before further edits are made - you yourself said there was no consensus in your mind; therefore, if you are being opposed, you need to stop and find out what that consensus is. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No there is no concensous at all, and I have truly looked for one but you can quite clearly see they are all doing the exact same thing changing the article to what they feel is the best and using that excuse "concensous"! There is no concencous! And you can see this if you took the time to actually read the history of the article! I was not addressing my comment to you and I can clearly see you have not read the full facts from your comments! This is not what I think Hersfold, this is what is! Take the time to read and see for yourself, there is absolutely no "concenous" and I knew they would use it as an excuse. No concensous had ever been reached! And this is just the excuse they use to game the system and take tag-team ownership of the article. Hersfold I know you will be offended by what I have just said to you and it is in no way my fault, and that is what the problem is with wikipedia editors, they never aknowledge there own mistakes and then when someone points them out they take offence. It's not my fault if you don't take the time to read, but clearly it is my problem as I am the only one who has been treated the way I have. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

reason — your attitude in your repsonses shows your lack of good faith and tendency towards personal attacks — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

And her decline reason shows her lack of good faith in what I said. I don't lack any faith as I have already seen what has happened, past tense. So how can I lack faith if I'm describing the past. I don't have a tendency towards personal attacks and you even stating this shows your lack of good faith. Provide me with a diff in what I just said which shows my tendency towards personal attacks! You know what wikipedia needs? It needs a whole court system with lawyers, judges and a jury, the whole enchilada. Because when you give people the power to be all in one it makes for an unfair environment in which there are many hypocrites and people who abuse their power. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You didn't get what I was saying. If there is no consensus, and you're being reverted, you need to stop and form a consensus. Edit warring prevents that from happening. As for the court system you're proposing, it would be a complete waste of time to bring your block to ArbCom when it's only a week long. Especially since they tend to take months to finish their cases. Please calm down, review our policies, and come back when you're willing to peacefully discuss things. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeePee-20.7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay well I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you said to me but this "Discussion needs to come to a consensus before further edits are made - you yourself said there was no consensus in your mind; therefore, if you are being opposed, you need to stop and find out what that consensus is." sure seems like you are implying there is a concensous especially how you noted in my "mind" and not in general. But if you wern't saying there was a concensous and are saying "If there is no consensus, and you're being reverted, you need to stop and form a consensus." then you should take some time to actually look at the talkpage of Chilean Australian as you can see alot of points I repeatedly make are not addressed at all and the users are more interested in getting it taken of the RfC page list than they are at actually addressing all flaws and concerns with the article. I am not assuming bad faith as history and evidence is in play. I am always willing to peacefully discuss things only when all points are in fact discussed and not simply disregarded because editors are not willing to take the time to make things right. I joined wikipedia to help and improve any articles I can and not to damage it, and I also believe in fair treatment and the saying "treat others how you want to be treated". So simply I treat others how they treat me, I respect who respects me, and I am all about fairness. Keep this in mind, and don't judge me. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring. Your responses above show no understanding of this, nor have you provided any sign that you will stop. This is the fifth unblock request you have made, continuing with the same arguments as before, which is clearly abuse of the unblock template. I'm protecting your talk page until the block has expired. Dreadstar † 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For what its worth, the guy is a bigot. See the discussion page for Mario Vasquez. Arguing and being petty are one thing, being a bigoted piece of shit is another. Period. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marsupial Lion

A recent edit war on concerning a page you recently edited (but may not have been involved with the war) is being resolved via a poll. If you have an opinion, please voice it now by voting at Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article check!

Hello TeePee-20.7
I needed another editor part of the Reggaeton WikiProject group to just check out a major article relating to reggaeton. The new song by Daddy Yankee, Pose. I fixed it up a couple of days ago because it only had like 3 or 4 sentences on it! I don't know if the way I fixed it is "perfect." So I need another to check. Thanks! El Cangri386 23:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, comparing to the edit 2 days before - Edit 239880556. Thanks! El Cangri386 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject - thanks

		El Sombrero Barnstar Award
		Thank you for helping out with the Latinos WikiProject. LatinoMuslim 01:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of The Noise Volumen

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Noise Volumen, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Noise Volumen is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Noise Volumen, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Hello, I'll post this here just in case you are reading it as well -- you might want to go to WP:AN and explain why you are evading your block using the sockpuppet account User:LatinoAussie Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop WikiProject Roll Call

Hello, fellow Hip Hop WikiProject members!

This message is being sent out to let all listed members of the project know to re-add your name to the members list, as all current names on the list have been erased in order to find out who is still active on the project. WikiGuy86 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tommy Viera

The article Tommy Viera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP. Doesn't appear to be notable. No coverage found beyond a couple of very brief mentions.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Michig (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brown pride

The article Brown pride has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, no indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reggaetón

Template:Reggaetón has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Juan Fernández de Alarcón

The article Juan Fernández de Alarcón has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]